Its subpar [pictures]

A review for Space Station 13 created by Exadv1
Gameplay2/10
Presentation0/10
Originality7/10
Overall3/10
I feel like the gameplay failings on SS13 are like the giant purple elephant in the room that nobody is noticing but me. Whenever an argument is made about game quality on BYOND, SS13 is inevitably drawn up as a high quality game. Its been driving me absolutely insane every time i play it because i keep expecting to uncover some form of coherent gameplay element that doesn't exist.

First of all, everybody on BYOND will go off and criticize any other shoddy game that has such unintuitive verb use abuse and clunky GUI. For instance, if you want to pick up a shirt, you click on it. It goes into your right hand and then you have to click it in your right hand, and click it onto your body. I spent the first 15 seconds trying to drag and drop expecting a game that is heralded as well programmed to have such simple features. It takes basically 3-4 attempts before a shirt will be equipped and thats just the tip of the frustration for any new player. Joining the game gives you a pretty good feel for what a letdown the game will be. You pick your name and if you feel like it you can even chose to give yourself a debilitating illness for some reason. No actual character stats or class or anything like that is assignable at creation. Only poor vision, epilepsy and such. Why? when i first played I thought itd be funny to give myself a few illnesses but all it did was confuse the heck out of me. I would pass out, be unable to talk and couldn't see anything. Attempt two would come a week later. I would walk around and try and catch a roleplay, those who play CowRP will tell you that you'll easily get swept up into some sort of story-tangent but in SS13 there isnt anything like that at all. Everybody is going off doing science experiments (a redeeming feature) however theres a huge lack of actual player interaction. The closest thing to player interaction is when i for no reason whatsoever found myself being cracked on the head by a guy wearing guard apparel and being welded into a locker. That really sucked, i had to come back a while later to bother giving the game another chance.

I'll evaluate the graphics quickly because its easy to. The graphics in SS13 are the worst graphics i have ever seen in a game that has more than 3 players on at at a time. I really thought the zeta rips would have been tacky enough, however SS13 is the epitome of lazy when it comes to graphics. The GUI is all grey gradients with terribly drawn symbols. There are no directions for the characters and the turfs are all solid colored shapes and really the ugliest imaginable on a game. Heres a tip guys, if a game gets even modestly popular, see if theres somebody who isnt ridiculously bad at drawing to do your graphics for you. I know that this game is full of people who think graphics dont matter, AT ALL, however it actually detracts from the enjoyment of the game when it gets this bad. It is simply laziness considering the street credit the game has, recruiting icon help would have been a breeze.

Now to code, since most people who play SS13 will almost certainly argue that code makes up for a game i think its important for me to address the fact that this game is incredibly lazily coded. There is nothing about this game that is impressive in terms of its code. You always find situations where somebody who was good at BYOND code would have made it more convenient or more effective, but no. Joining a game shouldn't be a matter of walking up to wall, getting a done verb, pressing it and getting a enter game verb. Thats garbage! for gods sake why isnt there any sign of game design in that at all? The code is poor but it works I guess, the problem then becomes the lack of game design. The game is supposed to be RP, however the game doesn't play like an RP game. There are hundreds of ways to grief somebody and the incentive to do it is there as there is no entertaining alternative to finding an excuse to putting somebody in a straight jacket, injecting somebody with plasma or putting them in a airlock chamber.

The game is by no means the worst, obviously there is some fun to it but the content and entertainment in the game is buried and hidden and it requires a huge time investment to really get into it, and even when you do you can expect the majority of players to just ruin it for you anyway because the game really lacks any sort of guidance to keep new players from doing anything more than bashing each other with crowbars.

Now, the game is original i suppose. I don't really see why people think it is so impressively original however. The game basically is sci-fi, your in a space station and while it hasn't been done much on BYOND, what makes it really original? Its just a generic space themed game with an absence of ingenuities in the game play department, so originality is more than a binary evaluation, its not a it isnt based on something or it is. This game doesn't really break any molds, it doesn't do anything that made me think, oh thats neat. And it wasn't even fun. I think SS13 is pretty much just a big chat room.


The initial spawn point, where you build your character.


Inside the space station!

Posted by Masterdan (Dungeon Master) on Friday, March 14, 2008 08:10PM - 72 comments / Members say: yea +11, nay -11
(Edited by moderator on Saturday, March 15, 2008 12:09AM)

« Another Harry Potter game? Wrong. · Leave of absence »

Login to post a comment.

#72 Zewo:  

Ok everyone, He mainly Reviewed it to tell you if he liked it or not, Not to hurt the game. Reviews are here for a reason to give peoples opinions, Masterdan as you see has his opinion, I also agree with most of the stuff he said the game is very confusing, equiping is hell of a job and lastly Graphics, At least make the walking a bit better not just facing forward magicly moving to the side.

Wednesday, July 09, 2008 03:57PM

#71 AogRidir:  

Psst. Don't feed me <3

Sunday, June 22, 2008 12:31AM

#70 Lummox JR:  

The game has enough cheerleaders that a voice for the negatives was in order. He did mention the positive points, even though he made it clear that they're hard to experience well because of the flaws in the gameplay and interface. And every fair review I've read of this game has pointed out that actual roleplaying is thin on the ground where it even exists at all.

The game's main problems seem to be that 1) it has a steep learning curve, 2) griefing is encouraged by being easy for experienced players, and 3) griefing is hard for novice players to defend against.

I'm kinda disappointed myself, that you responded to this post so late in the game without at least bringing something new to the table. The points you've mentioned have already been discussed to death.

Friday, June 20, 2008 07:29AM

#69 AogRidir:  

<_< This is a terrible review. It's more of a "point out all the negative flaws and ignore any decencies" fest. Dan i'm dissapointed in you :(

The game's pretty kickass roleplay-wise. There are endless possibilities. Just thought i'd point that out~

Friday, June 20, 2008 12:31AM

#68 Pseudonym:  

Lummox JR wrote:
> Foomer wrote:
> > People who can't points out both good and bad features for a game shouldn't be reviewing - and a game with nothing but bad features isn't worth reviewing!
>
> A game with nothing but bad features is worth reviewing if only to provide a warning to others to stay away. By this logic no one would ever have reviewed Gigli. Heck, one site I know of does nothing but review irredeemably bad films.

And by this same logic, we should all be able to review games like GOA with absolutely no positive points. Just thought I'd point that out before I go skulk away.

Friday, March 21, 2008 02:53PM

#67 Lummox JR:  

Foomer wrote:
> People who can't points out both good and bad features for a game shouldn't be reviewing - and a game with nothing but bad features isn't worth reviewing!

A game with nothing but bad features is worth reviewing if only to provide a warning to others to stay away. By this logic no one would ever have reviewed Gigli. Heck, one site I know of does nothing but review irredeemably bad films.

Wednesday, March 19, 2008 09:18PM

#66 Foomer:  

Game reviews shouldn't be bad or good. They should be strictly neutral, with a good explanation of all the game's good and bad points. People who can't points out both good and bad features for a game shouldn't be reviewing - and a game with nothing but bad features isn't worth reviewing!

Wednesday, March 19, 2008 05:23PM

#65 Keeth:  

>> No, it's more like telling Gamespot not to review a game if they haven't played it.

>> "If you don't have anything good to say, don't say anything at all."

Those aren't the same at all.
You can have nothing good to say even if you play the game.

Wednesday, March 19, 2008 05:22PM

#64 Ryokashi:  

Bwgmon wrote:
> Foomer wrote:
> > But if you're playing a game that you just don't like, why even bother reviewing it? Its kind of like the expression, "If you don't have anything good to say, don't say anything at all."
>
> If there were no bad reviews, there would only be good reviews. Wouldn't that lead people to believe the review system is biased? That's like telling Gamespot not to review a game if it gets less than a 6.0.

No, it's more like telling Gamespot not to review a game if they haven't played it.

Wednesday, March 19, 2008 05:21PM

#63 Bwgmon:  

Foomer wrote:
> But if you're playing a game that you just don't like, why even bother reviewing it? Its kind of like the expression, "If you don't have anything good to say, don't say anything at all."

If there were no bad reviews, there would only be good reviews. Wouldn't that lead people to believe the review system is biased? That's like telling Gamespot not to review a game if it gets less than a 6.0.

Wednesday, March 19, 2008 05:20PM

#62 Foomer:  

But if you're playing a game that you just don't like, why even bother reviewing it? Its kind of like the expression, "If you don't have anything good to say, don't say anything at all."

Wednesday, March 19, 2008 05:09PM

#61 Keeth:  

>> I think if you can't find something good to say along with the bad, you probably shouldn't be writing a review about it, since its obviously not your kind of game.

As long as it has some valid points, I don't see a problem.
As long as it isn't just, "this game sucks, don't play it".

Wednesday, March 19, 2008 04:49PM

#60 Foomer:  

Boomer T wrote:
> I understand several of Foomer's points, but I disagree on one point; review by someone who played and LIKED the game.

Yeah, well, I'm not sure I agree with it either. I only mention it because I don't like to see reviews which were made for the sole purpose of bashing the game in question. I think if you can't find something good to say along with the bad, you probably shouldn't be writing a review about it, since its obviously not your kind of game.

Wednesday, March 19, 2008 04:46PM

#59 Boomer T:  

I understand several of Foomer's points, but I disagree on one point; review by someone who played and LIKED the game.

I agree with played, a review must be informed to serve its purpose, after all, but a person who really liked the game will be possibly biased to sing it's praises and not mention is faults. Granted, not always the case.

Wednesday, March 19, 2008 09:02AM

#58 Lummox JR:  

I think the "depth of play" rule only applies to games where a learning curve is your only real enemy. I know some games really need the in-depth analysis, like a sports game with season management modes, because those sorts of things take lots of play time to judge. I don't think SS13 has nearly that level of depth, and really no reviewer is going to stick around to review the deepest features if they keep getting pummeled at the outset. If you look around for reviews of the last levels of Lair for instance, they're probably thin on the ground.

In SS13's case, the bad interface and graphics are merely gravy. The gameplay is so stilted toward enabling griefers that it's tremendously difficult to get to the point where you've seen everything, done everything.

In fact I'd argue that in anything with a huge amount of content that requires discovery, even if said content was actually reachable, having to go through it all before reviewing it would be ridiculous. In a game, you have to at some point say you've seen enough to have a solid idea what it's like. Imagine that rule applied to a Roguelike for instance, where some things may only pop up 1 in 100 times you play, and the high difficulty level means a reviewer would seldom reach the lowest levels. A book by contrast takes you on a linear journey to completion.

Wednesday, March 19, 2008 06:26AM

#57 Keeth:  

>> In that case, it should be reviewed by someone who reads Chinese.

Ok, replace Chinese with just "gibberish".

It was supposed to be in English.
So writing a review about the book saying "it was good but after 10 pages it was complete gibberish" would be alright.

Wednesday, March 19, 2008 12:12AM

#56 Foomer:  

Keeth wrote:
> However, thinking of SS13 as book.
> The first 10 pages would be in English.
> The rest is in Chinese.
> You can keep reading but it's most likely that the rest is in Chinese too.

In that case, it should be reviewed by someone who reads Chinese.

Tuesday, March 18, 2008 10:04PM

#55 Keeth:  

>> Reviews should really be done by people who've played the game and liked it, so they can provide an honest review of the game's good and bad points, instead of posting another "I started playing and this, this and this sucked so I quit" review.

I agree, you SHOULD go through something entirely before writing a review on it, since a review should be from someone who has experienced everything it has to offer.

However, thinking of SS13 as book.
The first 10 pages would be in English.
The rest is in Chinese.
You can keep reading but it's most likely that the rest is in Chinese too.

If you want to play a normal game of SS13, you can walk around and wait to be killed, or you can walk around wondering what exactly it is you're supposed to do (since I haven't seen any type of in-depth tutorial on what it is exactly you are supposed to do, in your profession or otherwise).

To really experience the game, you need to host it yourself, or have someone host it for you, and find some other people to play with. (people who know how to play)

It's too much hassle if you're just looking to play a game, not dedicate a good amount of time learning how to play it.

Tuesday, March 18, 2008 06:56PM
(Edited on Wednesday, March 19, 2008 12:09AM)

#54 Foomer:  

I kind of disagree with you there, Lummox. I don't think its fair for someone who hasn't played a game well enough to know a game's good and bad points to be posting an official review. Reviews should really be done by people who've played the game and liked it, so they can provide an honest review of the game's good and bad points, instead of posting another "I started playing and this, this and this sucked so I quit" review.

If someone hasn't played the game yet, its fair to tell them that the game is hard to get into. However, its not fair if you're not telling them about the game's good points which, apparently to some people, make the steep learning curve worthwhile.

Also, you say that read that you wouldn't trust a book review without them finishing the entire book. But saying that its okay for a game to be reviewed without experiencing the entire game. That's the equivalent of reviewing a book having only read the first half, and explaining in detail how horrible the introduction was - even if the author really shines in his endings. Maybe the game has a crappy introduction but, once you get into the meat of it, it improves. But anyone who isn't experienced enough to have "read the whole book" wouldn't know this.

Tuesday, March 18, 2008 12:23PM

#53 Lummox JR:  

Exactly, Boomer. Reviews exist for the sake of people who haven't yet played the game, or who may have barely touched it and want to know the rough overall merit. While I'd consider a book review from someone who never made it to the last page to be less substantial, a game is a different animal. Masterdan pointed out the kind of problems a new player can expect on a typical server. From that perspective his review is right on the money. As far as experiences further into the game, testimony from multiple sources has backed up that his overall impression was valid there too.

Monday, March 17, 2008 08:54AM